Dalton Conley

And we need to have a nuanced discussion of how genetic prediction should be and should not be used, given that insight.

And we need to have a nuanced discussion of how genetic prediction should be and should not be used, given that insight.

There was a recent review article that looked at 50 years of twin studies, which were the bread and butter of trying to separate out genes and environment. And they came to the conclusion across thousands of outcomes that the average was 49% genetic and 51% environmental. And again, you might just look at that and say it's a tie, but I think that kind of misses the point.

There was a recent review article that looked at 50 years of twin studies, which were the bread and butter of trying to separate out genes and environment. And they came to the conclusion across thousands of outcomes that the average was 49% genetic and 51% environmental. And again, you might just look at that and say it's a tie, but I think that kind of misses the point.

Actually, that's a false dichotomy, the nature versus nurture, and it's nature plus nurture that really is how things operate. So even if that 49%, a lot of that goes through how those genes extract nurture in the world.

Actually, that's a false dichotomy, the nature versus nurture, and it's nature plus nurture that really is how things operate. So even if that 49%, a lot of that goes through how those genes extract nurture in the world.

Number one, there's a genomic prediction revolution happening as we speak, and we should have a public debate about how we want to use genetic prediction in schools, in insurance companies, in fertility clinics, and so forth. It's an important debate that's missing. Number two, we shouldn't think of genes as a blueprint. We should think of them as a greedy AI algorithm.

Number one, there's a genomic prediction revolution happening as we speak, and we should have a public debate about how we want to use genetic prediction in schools, in insurance companies, in fertility clinics, and so forth. It's an important debate that's missing. Number two, we shouldn't think of genes as a blueprint. We should think of them as a greedy AI algorithm.

They need the environment to come to fruition. And the effect of the genes doesn't stop at our skin. And three, we really can't separate out nature and nurture. We should just retire that 150-year-old debate, nature versus nurture. How nurture matters depends on our genes and how our genes matter depends on our environment.

They need the environment to come to fruition. And the effect of the genes doesn't stop at our skin. And three, we really can't separate out nature and nurture. We should just retire that 150-year-old debate, nature versus nurture. How nurture matters depends on our genes and how our genes matter depends on our environment.

Thanks, Lynn.

Thanks, Lynn.